Protect Sally Mann's photography

What parent doesn’t have pictures their kids playing with toy boats in the bathtub? Or of the time their child decided it was a good idea to take off their diaper and run around in the backyard? It is a fact of nature: kids are occasionally naked and their parents are going to want to take a picture to look back on the “days of innocence” at some point down the road (or use them to embarrass you…). I have a cousin whose kids constantly get undressed at family gatherings. Everyone finds it hilarious; grandparents, aunts and uncles snap a few pictures, everyone moves on with their lives. No one is accused of producing child pornography

While family members aren’t zooming in on genitals as some of Sally Mann’s photography does (for example, Drips), and their pictures aren’t being published, I believe both deserve equal protection. Sally Mann’s artwork is showcasing her own children and Osbourne v. Ohio states that possession of or viewing a child in a state of nudity is unacceptable unless “the minor’s parents or guardians have consented in writing to such photographing or use of the minor.” Much as members of my family would expect their rights to be protected for taking pictures of my cousin’s kids running around my grandparent’s backyard without clothes on. In both cases, parents are providing consent. I believe that this should be expanded from Ohio to recognize a nationwide “parent consent” exception with the First Amendment in regards to photos of their children. However, I believe that this should only apply to photographs or other mediums in which children are NOT participating in sexually explicit behavior.

Mann’s work does indeed have artistic value; Immediate Family captures the innocence of her children through a series of photos. One particular photo I believe showcased this innocence particularly well was Wet Bed. When critics of Mann’s work have zoomed in on a particular part of a single photo and claimed that it is child pornography, it is degrading to the work and takes it completely out of context. It is possible to make many, many photographs offensive by zooming in or excluding part of the photo. It skews and degrades the photo, takes it out of context and distorts what the photograph was originally about. In the case of Mann’s photography, and in the case of all similar photography done by parents, a SLAPS test would be beneficial because this would protect and preserve the artistic nature of the photography.

In addition to taking into consideration whether or not the work lacks serious literary, artistic, political or scientific value, there is another standard that Miller v. California lays out that I believe should be applied to Mann’s photography. As I stated earlier, zooming in on a part of a photo defeats the purpose of the photo entirely. If the photographer had intended for a photo to only focus on one part of a photo, they would have taken it that way. So zooming in on it takes the photo out of context. The Court ruled in Miller v. California, that the work would not be considered obscene if “the average person, applying contemporary standards of the state or local community, would find that the work taken as a whole, appeals to the prurient interest.” Along with the fact that the work should be taken as a whole, I believe it is safe to say that photos of nude children do not appeal to the prurient interest of an average person.

This photo of Sally Mann's son has sparked some serious controversy. Under Osbourne v. Ohio, I would not consider this "graphic exhibition of the genitals." I believe that in this case, a “graphic exhibition of the genitals” would have to display the child engaging in sexual activity. It is possible to have photos that portray nudity without appealing to prurient interests. Nude photos of children is definitely one such case.

A later court case brought the Child Pornography Prevention Act of 1996 into being. It states that any visual depiction of minors engaging in sexually explicit conduct is illegal. Mann’s photography does nothing of the sort. The images in Mann’s book are not, in my opinion, patently offensive unless taken out of context or distorted in some way. And in class when some of the photos were distorted, it definitely changed my perception of the photography.

Sally Mann’s artwork should absolutely be protected. It does not showcase her children participating in sexually explicit conduct. Rather, her photos capture her children at a point in their lives where they haven’t yet been exposed to a society in which they are made to feel ashamed of their bodies. In my opinion, everyone could learn a lesson from the way that Sally Mann has clearly made her children feel comfortable with themselves and their bodies just the way that they are . I believe this is the case with any such photography of children.